Foreveryoung writes:
I have seen a few Christians claim that many of what appears to be historical documents in the bible, actually did not occur at all.
Well we just do not have very much evidence that alot of it did happen. I always figured most of the bible is stories and parables to teach a lesson rather than a literal passage about something that happened.
If the bible is book that is littered with stories that are pure fiction but that are conveyed in such a way to appear as legitimate, why would you trust anything else that it had to say?
Well I am not sure what examples you are talking about here, but there are so many things that are obviously not legitimate "real" stories, that it is hard for me to understand this perspective.
Why would I trust a book of stories that I think are their to teach morality, because it doesn't have to be literal, to hold truth, and I do not have to believe everything in the bible as truth in order to validate the whole book. There was an intersting thread on bible canon I read recently, that i think ties into this much better. for some denominations having a literal and fully truthful bible is so tantamount for the whole denomination, that the denmonination will ignore logic and reasoning in a effort to validate thier beliefs and thier bible, thank God I do not belong to such a denomination.
If you say some of it is true, is it only because it already agrees with you have decided for yourself to be true?
Or maybe there are other ancient sources that agree with it, that give it some validity, other than the logic of "the bible is true because the bible says it is true"; For example: The Romans did conquer the area and create a province of Judea, the King of the Jews at the time was man name Herod. This is not a truth just because I believe it, but because the Jews, the Romans, and the early Christians all have sources that state this simple piece of information.
™ Version 4.2